We Conservatives Must Unite Behind One Candidate

We talk about the need to unite behind Romney. Why? He is not the majority. Take the primaries and add the votes for Santorum, for Gingrich, for Bachmann, for Paul – and we, the Christians, the conservatives, the Tea Party, the ones who in 2008 correctly rejected Romney for the liberal flip-flopper that he is, outnumber Romney.

One man – Ron Paul – has had the funding, patience, and grassroots support to not give up. Paul is winning caucuses not only due to the diligence of his own supporters but also due to the alliances made between other minority candidates. When the conservatives have worked together, Ron Paul has won. It’s time for the conservatives to unite behind him to defeat Obama.

Curious about how Ron Paul compares with Mitt Romney? A breakdown of Gun Rights, Life, and National Defense:

Gun Rights

Gun Owners of America has given Romney a D- ranking and Paul an A+. Romney has the worst ratings across the pro-gun community of all of the GOP candidates from the 2011-12 primary cycle.

GOA on Mitt Romney:
Gun Rights and Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney Won’t Take Stand on UN Guns Treaty

Where Does Romney Stand Today on the Second Amendment?

GOA on Ron Paul:
Rep. Ron Paul: A Second Amendment Champion

Rep. Ron Paul – A+ Voting Record

Life vs. Death by Abortion

Romney has a long track record of supporting and funding abortion. He started to publicly shift positions when he hit the national stage, but then he waivers back and forth. Extremely inconsistent. I haven’t checked out this organization, but this website’s list of his track record is awesome: Mitt Romney, Former Gov. of Massachusetts (R), Tier 4 – Personhood Never

That same site, however, does give very inaccurate portrayal of Ron Paul’s positions on life, so I’d take it with a grain of salt. Glancing through their list of Romney’s votes it looks accurate. They don’t seem to understand Paul’s constitutional method. Paul and Santorum have a public disagreement regarding how to stop abortion. They work towards the same goal, but the difference is in approach.

Rather than pushing for a federal ban on abortion that a) probably won’t happen, b) will take years more to happen if it does, and c) increases federal government power, Paul has a two-pronged approach. First, Paul has introduced to the House the Sanctity of Life Act, which takes away federal authority from abortion. If passed that would overturn Roe v. Wade immediately. Dr. Paul is a Baptist, an OB-GYN from the Houston area, and has delivered over 4,000 babies. Paul says that abortion is murder – always, no exception, it is murder. Murder is a state crime. If we give the federal government authority over it, then a) they have the power to legalize it again, and b) we make abortion a different legal classification from what it is – murder, plain and simple.

Step 1 – make it a state issue so that it can be properly classified as murder at the state level. This worries a lot of folks, because what if a state does not consider it murder? First, it’s easier to get a state to consider it murder than it is the federal government. Second, with the exception of California and Massachusetts, if I recall correctly, each of the states is significantly more pro-life than the federal government. My extremely pro-abortion constitutional law professor – who was brilliant, lovely, and very kind to me as a conservative student even though we completely disagreed on abortion – taught us that abortion MUST be kept a federal issue… because, except for CA and MA, every time a state gets control of the abortion issue it results in tougher abortion laws. As more states get control, abortion is increasingly prohibited. The only thing that bars most states from banning it is Roe v. Wade – which Paul’s Sanctity of Life bill would overturn.

Step 2 – Personhood amendments. Paul supports amendments to the U.S. and state constitutions that would define life as beginning at conception.

The net result of this approach would be rapidly decreased access to abortion, more rights of the states to classify it as murder, no federal interference, and as soon as constitutional amendments of personhood are passed in individual states and nationally, a 100% prohibition of abortion and classification of it as murder. Not just a prohibited medical action, but murder.

Paul also, it must be noted, opposes any funding of Planned Parenthood, including for contraception. I don’t know about Gingrich or Bachmann on that one, but I know that Romney and Santorum both either supported (Romney) or voted for (Santorum) funding Planned Parenthood.

Military and National Defense

Ron Paul has the strongest position on national defense, secure borders, and taking care of the military. He is the only military veteran running for president. He was U.S. Air Force and National Guard, served on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and when he was drafted he did not claim the available exceptions… he went anyway.

He has more private donations from active military personnel than all of the other candidates – all those who have dropped out included – combined.

He uses the more accurate terminology by differentiating between “overseas military” spending and “defense” spending. In the past few decades these have been combined in terminology and in congressional bills, but Paul holds to the traditionally conservative approach. Paul wants to withdraw from the United Nations. Paul wants no U.S. troops under foreign leadership. Paul does not want to interfere with other countries by using our military to destabilize or police other countries… no Libya involvement, no Syria involvement, no Uganda, no Sudan, etc. If our national security is not directly threatened, we should not be involved. It violates the Constitution, bankrupts our country, and abuses our troops.

Instead, Paul wants to massively ramp up our national defense. He has been pointing out for years that our country is very insecure. He wants to open NEW bases in the U.S. He wants to adequately and efficiently fund our bases… instead of the $1,000,000,000 dollars spent on the Iraqi embassy. He wants to pull our troops out of unnecessary foreign locations and put them on our borders… keeping in mind that he’s a Texan, Paul wants to fully secure our borders.

The other big factor that has to be addressed, and this is again a strategic decision that is widely debated among conservatives like us, is how can we most effectively support Israel. Paul was the only elected official who stood up against Congress in 1981 to defend Israel’s right to defend herself as she sees fit. Paul loudly supports Israel’s national sovereignty and rights to defense. We use our foreign aid as a leash to keep Israel in line… and Paul says that’s wrong.

Foreign aid is itself unconstitutional and bad foreign policy – the Constitution says that tax dollars can only be used to the direct purposes of the taxpayers. The federal government is NOT authorized to take money from Americans at gunpoint and then send it to other countries. Foreign aid is inefficient, because it usually goes to local bureaucrats and warlords – look at Africa and the Middle East! – instead of the people in need.

Dr. Paul points out that even though we give foreign aid to Israel – and use it to prevent Israel from defending herself – we give several times that amount in foreign aid to Israel’s neighboring enemies. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Israel does not need American money or American troops… all Israel needs is the freedom to defend herself without American interference. Paul agrees with Netanyahu. Paul’s strategy is to stop all foreign aid to all countries. That’s one of the major ways he has committed to cutting $1 Trillion in the first year and balancing the budget in three years. Stopping foreign aid will cut the leash that America uses to choke Israel, and stopping foreign aid will immediately cripple the economies of Israel’s enemies… because our American dollars are keeping those countries alive and thriving. If we cut our aid to them then they will have to use their money to survive, not to attack Israel or fund terrorists.

As for the war on terror, Paul has the most direct, most effective, least expensive, and most constitutional solution. Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The Constitution authorizes Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. We don’t do this because it is banned by the UN – and Paul says the UN has zero authority over America, Congress, and America’s military. Paul would allow Congress to pay mercenaries to terminate specific targets. He called immediately for such a process to take out Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders. Had we followed Paul’s advice, we would not have needed the type of ground campaign and national building programs that we have had… and we would eliminated Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations years faster. We and Israel would be much safer and much wealthier had we listened to Ron Paul’s advice from the beginning and reject the United Nation’s control.

If you enjoyed this post, please share to Twitter and Facebook and consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader. Thank you! - Lorien


Seth May 23, 2012 Reply

Lorien, if Paul does not get the nomination and does not run 3rd party, I propose Paul supporters vote Obama this year. Better to have a kind hearted mis-guided liberal in office, than a fake! And in 2016, perhaps a real Libertarian will rise to the challenge.

Lorien June 6, 2012 Reply

I understand your point, but that's not something I'm willing to do.

Leave a Reply